[andyalfa]

I don't know much about FLAC, apart from the fact it's lossless and therefore as close to the original source CD as possible, but...

There is a feature on Media Monkey which allows you to convert files to FLAC and since all my CD's are ripped to WMA at 320kbps, I'd liek to know if I need to re-rip the files to to FLAC, or will converting a ready-ripped MP3 file produce the same results?

My guess is that this would be too easy and all I'm doing is producing a larger, lossy version of the file I already have. Am I right?

Also, the settings offer several comprassion ratios from 0 through to 10. The higher the number, the longer it takes to convert. What is the difference? Is a file created using ratio 0 better or worse than one created using ratio 10?

Assuming I obtain a Sansa Fuze very shortly, could I simply drag and drop the FLAC files straight onto the player as it shows on My Computer?

 

[willw]

A FLAC file is lossless. It isn't "close to" CD (ie source) quality - it is exactly the same.
The different compression choices affect the speed of compression - there is very little difference in file size. The output sound quality is the same at all compression levels - it's lossless - literally. The default setting is usually 4 or 5, either is pretty quick.
As for converting already compressed files to FLAC - yes it does seem kind of pointless.

Don't know about the Sanza, but that's how it works on my Cowon Iaudio7 - just drag & drop.

 

[Toad]

you are going to want to re-rip them and use the highest compression ratio possible....search google for an EAC tutorial to ensure you have the best possible settings

 

[nc8000]

You will need to re-rip your cd's as the wma's at 320 kb has already been compressed and lost sq.

I don't know Media Monkey but would guess that the 0 to 10 ratio would have something to do with how small the resulting files become as it should not make any sq difference since loslsess is lossless is lossless.

The Fuze question I can't help you with.

 

[andyalfa]

Thanks for the super fast replies. Twas just as I thought. More evenings spent at my PC instead of living a full and active life. Still, it only has to be done once, I suppose.

Cheers folks.

 

[Zalithian]

Don't bother using flac on a portable if you can't tell the difference. If you have Foobar, or don't - get it and do extensive ABX testing. There's no point wasting space on a portable just because it's supposed to be the best. Everyone has different ears. Do some testing first before you waste a ton of time. Chances are you won't even notice a difference between 320wma and flac, but incase you do and find the change warranted - at least you'll know it was worth it. If you have the HD space, having your computer library in lossless is a good thing but I would say don't bother wasting the very limited space of a portable unless you can tell some major differences.

 

[andyalfa]

A lot of my collections is old blues stuff so the souce material isn't of the best quality to start with. I was going to choose a select few of my favourite (and best quality) recordings and try those out for size before embarking on a major project.

You mention Foobar...I've read about it on these pages, but what is it exactly? Is it like a Media Monkey/Media Player type of thing?

 

[WalkGood]

I think these two sites will be helpfull for you to read and save for reference:

FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase:Main Page - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase